GOAL: In this paper, we propose methods for (1) automatic feature extraction and classification for acetic acid and Lugol's iodine cervigrams and (2) methods for combining features/diagnosis of different contrasts in cervigrams for improved performance. METHODS: We developed algorithms to pre-process pathology-labeled cervigrams and extract simple but powerful color and textural-based features. The features were used to train a support vector machine model to classify cervigrams based on corresponding pathology for visual inspection with acetic acid, visual inspection with Lugol's iodine, and a combination of the two contrasts. RESULTS: The proposed framework achieved a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 81.3%, 78.6%, and 80.0%, respectively, when used to distinguish cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN+) relative to normal and benign tissues. This is superior to the average values achieved by three expert physicians on the same data set for discriminating normal/benign cases from CIN+ (77% sensitivity, 51% specificity, and 63% accuracy). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that utilizing simple color- and textural-based features from visual inspection with acetic acid and visual inspection with Lugol's iodine images may provide unbiased automation of cervigrams. SIGNIFICANCE: This would enable automated, expert-level diagnosis of cervical pre-cancer at the point of care.
GOAL: In this paper, we propose methods for (1) automatic feature extraction and classification for acetic acid and Lugol's iodine cervigrams and (2) methods for combining features/diagnosis of different contrasts in cervigrams for improved performance. METHODS: We developed algorithms to pre-process pathology-labeled cervigrams and extract simple but powerful color and textural-based features. The features were used to train a support vector machine model to classify cervigrams based on corresponding pathology for visual inspection with acetic acid, visual inspection with Lugol's iodine, and a combination of the two contrasts. RESULTS: The proposed framework achieved a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 81.3%, 78.6%, and 80.0%, respectively, when used to distinguish cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN+) relative to normal and benign tissues. This is superior to the average values achieved by three expert physicians on the same data set for discriminating normal/benign cases from CIN+ (77% sensitivity, 51% specificity, and 63% accuracy). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that utilizing simple color- and textural-based features from visual inspection with acetic acid and visual inspection with Lugol's iodine images may provide unbiased automation of cervigrams. SIGNIFICANCE: This would enable automated, expert-level diagnosis of cervical pre-cancer at the point of care.
Authors: Jenna L Mueller; Elizabeth Asma; Christopher T Lam; Marlee S Krieger; Jennifer E Gallagher; Alaattin Erkanli; Roopa Hariprasad; J S Malliga; Lisa C Muasher; Bariki Mchome; Olola Oneko; Peyton Taylor; Gino Venegas; Anthony Wanyoro; Ravi Mehrotra; John W Schmitt; Nimmi Ramanujam Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: L Stewart Massad; Mark H Einstein; Warner K Huh; Hormuzd A Katki; Walter K Kinney; Mark Schiffman; Diane Solomon; Nicolas Wentzensen; Herschel W Lawson Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Sun Young Park; Michele Follen; Andrea Milbourne; Helen Rhodes; Anais Malpica; Nick MacKinnon; Calum MacAulay; Mia K Markey; Rebecca Richards-Kortum Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: J L Mueller; C T Lam; D Dahl; M N Asiedu; M S Krieger; Y Bellido-Fuentes; M Kellish; J Peters; A Erkanli; E J Ortiz; L C Muasher; P T Taylor; J W Schmitt; G Venegas; N Ramanujam Journal: BJOG Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Mercy Nyamewaa Asiedu; Júlia Agudogo; Marlee S Krieger; Robert Miros; Rae Jean Proeschold-Bell; John W Schmitt; Nimmi Ramanujam Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David Brenes; C J Barberan; Brady Hunt; Sonia G Parra; Mila P Salcedo; Júlio C Possati-Resende; Miriam L Cremer; Philip E Castle; José H T G Fregnani; Mauricio Maza; Kathleen M Schmeler; Richard Baraniuk; Rebecca Richards-Kortum Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2022-02-26 Impact factor: 7.422
Authors: Bum-Joo Cho; Youn Jin Choi; Myung-Je Lee; Ju Han Kim; Ga-Hyun Son; Sung-Ho Park; Hong-Bae Kim; Yeon-Ji Joo; Hye-Yon Cho; Min Sun Kyung; Young-Han Park; Byung Soo Kang; Soo Young Hur; Sanha Lee; Sung Taek Park Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Mercy N Asiedu; Júlia S Agudogo; Mary E Dotson; Erica Skerrett; Marlee S Krieger; Christopher T Lam; Doris Agyei; Juliet Amewu; Kwaku Asah-Opoku; Megan Huchko; John W Schmitt; Ali Samba; Emmanuel Srofenyoh; Nirmala Ramanujam Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Daniel Y Joh; Jacob T Heggestad; Shengwei Zhang; Gray R Anderson; Jayanta Bhattacharyya; Suzanne E Wardell; Simone A Wall; Amy B Cheng; Faris Albarghouthi; Jason Liu; Sachi Oshima; Angus M Hucknall; Terry Hyslop; Allison H S Hall; Kris C Wood; E Shelley Hwang; Kyle C Strickland; Qingshan Wei; Ashutosh Chilkoti Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2021-07-02